Exclusive The Government will reconsider its GP funding uplift offer once the independent pay review body makes a recommendation in ‘the coming months’, the primary care minister has said.
This has been revealed in a letter to the BMA’s GP Committee this afternoon, and follows Pulse’s exclusive report yesterday that 1.9% was the Government’s initial offer for the baseline GMS uplift for 2023/24.
The letter also revealed a number of other financial considerations – including ringfencing funding for GP staff – that are up for discussion.
As reported by Pulse, GPC England chair Dr Katie Bramall-Stainer had written to primary care minister Andrea Leadsom asking her to intervene to improve the current ‘grossly inadequate’ offer, and met with her yesterday afternoon.
Now Dame Andrea has responded to Dr Bramall-Stainer’s letter and said that the Government ‘cannot prejudge the outcome’ for the year ahead prior to receiving DDRB recommendations.
The Government will hold a separate evidence session once they receive recommendations ‘to ensure that GP income and finances are properly considered’, according to Dame Andrea’s response seen by Pulse.
In her letter to Dr Bramall-Stainer, she said: ‘As we discussed, DDRB is due to report in a few months time. I was pleased that the Government was able to accept in full the DDRB’s recommendations for 2022/23.
‘As we discussed at some length yesterday, whilst I fully appreciated your concern that the “planning assumption” in the contract for 2024/25 was set at the figure of 1.9%, and does not reflect either affordability assessment or DDRB recommendations, we cannot prejudge the outcome for the year ahead prior to Government receiving the recommendations in the coming months.
‘To ensure that GP income and finances are properly considered and taking into account your own submissions I am pleased that we have committed to holding a separate evidence session.’
She also said that she remains open to discussion on how to ringfence money for GP staff.
She said: ‘Currently GP practices receive a global sum payment for partner, salaried GPs and practice staff income. It is currently up to practices to decide how to allocate this funding as independent contractors because practices will have different proportions of partners, salaried GPs and other staff.
‘You raised that you would like to explore options for ringfencing parts of the global sum for payment of different groups. I would welcome discussing further with you how we might approach such practice staffing issues.’
The letter also mentioned the general practice fellowship programme, which is set to be discontinued by NHS England.
The scheme provided practices with funding to allow their newly-qualified GPs to spend a session a week doing CPD, plus a sum for administrative fees – totalling £10,000.
Dame Andrea said that the future of the programme was discussed with the GPCE as ‘funding is to be allocated to ICBs to decide how best to delivery this locally’.
She added: ‘You have kindly agreed to provide evidence on the benefits of the fellowship scheme. NHS England are also undertaking an evaluation of the programme. I am keen to look closely at this issue on the basis of our discussion yesterday.’
Pulse revealed exclusively last year that the BMA’s GP committee for England was determined to submit partner pay evidence to DDRB this year – the first time in five years it has been requested – and this was allowed by the BMA following a vote overturning existing policy.
Aha! let’s molify those demanding GPs with a delaying tactic, at least to get us past the electoin, eh?
Strike. On the same day as consultants and junior doctors. nothing else can be acceptable. We have always been seen as the Cinderella speciality and the government know we are pushovers as most GPs won’t strike. They will get what they pay for in the end.
Is Dame Andrea saying that the meeting between KBS and the health/primary care minister was a timewasting exercise, because even when the DDRB has reported, the government will not believe their report, and will go through a further evidence-considering exercise, before sticking to the 1.9% cap or less ?
Not sure the GMS is just to cover contractor and Staff pay🤔 Does the minister know that we have to pay for lots of other things as well and we don’t just send our expenses claims into the ICB to settle?